The great wealth transfer 0

[vodou]

Blah blah.

Wealth/asset tax (while alive, not post-mortem inheritance) is not law presently.

For that to change, one cannot just wave a wand.

A new law is required by the legal body that writes new laws (speaking to Alex's comment), one which would need to pass through all the standard checks and balances first.

Never an easy thing that, particularly a new law not built to expand (or contract) on existing precedent.

That was the point.

 

[vodou]

Now that I've helped everybody understand the difference between dreams and reality (directly above), I'll add this link:

It's a good refresher course for how not to get in hot water

CGC's private property here, their site, their rules.

[namisgr]

22 minutes ago, vodou said:

CGC's private property here, their site, their rules.

Looks like they ruled to remove your post.

[vodou]

22 minutes ago, namisgr said:

Looks like they ruled to remove your post.

Yes. I intentionally chose to leave that post unedited (unlike others ) to see where the mod line was.

I was lazy.

That's why I didn't find the rule myself and see this:

DEFINITELY POLITICAL:

Discussions that either focus on or devolve into debates about:

1. Political parties
2. Broad political labels (liberal, conservative, etc.)
3. Election outcomes / forecasts
4. Performance of specific politicians by name
5. Debates about proper legislation to address a topic

So...you know...thanks for stating the obvious.

[Rick2you2]

4 minutes ago, vodou said:

Yes. I intentionally chose to leave that post unedited (unlike others ) to see where the mod line was.

I was lazy.

That's why I didn't find the rule myself and see this:

DEFINITELY POLITICAL:

Discussions that either focus on or devolve into debates about:

1. Political parties
2. Broad political labels (liberal, conservative, etc.)
3. Election outcomes / forecasts
4. Performance of specific politicians by name
5. Debates about proper legislation to address a topic

So...you know...thanks for stating the obvious.

Just read that thread. Looks like an opportunity to have a "spirited discusssion" on the intersection of those circles (so I added a comment).

Might as well bring some cake to the political parties (but I won't use red or blue frosting, I promise).

[namisgr]

23 hours ago, vodou said:

How many give a fig about comic art, 1% even? (doubtful!)

That would be 3,000. Huge number. Guess I'm good to go

1% of 3 million would be 30,000.

You're welcome in advance.  

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by namisgr

[bluechip]

11 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

But how many of those accounts are active? Or, active like this board? Ten times the premium member number perhaps? And don’t forget the collectors who buy lots of commissions. How many consider it a “good haul” because they pick up half a dozen commissions for $50 to $100 a pop? Lots of them on Facebook apparently.

96.4% of the CAF accounts are guys who don't collect comic art but they make it by drawing strippers and writing at the bottom "Gwen Stacy"

[vodou]

20 minutes ago, namisgr said:

1% of 3 million would be 30,000.

You're welcome in advance.  

 

Hey thanks...buddy

[Rick2you2]

28 minutes ago, bluechip said:

96.4% of the CAF accounts are guys who don't collect comic art but they make it by drawing strippers and writing on their bottom "Gwen Stacy"

Modification in boldface.

There are worse sins.

[zhamlau]

The Sal transfer won’t be too jarring once we get new “Average Artist Allowable Assessment” (from now on known as “4A”) put in place. This will hard cap his prices to a committee acceptable level commensurate with the prices committee members have already invested into their own portfolios (made up of “committee approved” artists of course).

Basically we add up all the REAL art and the lowly “nekkid Wonder Woman” tracings on CAF. Than take those totals and divide by the hypotenuse of the GDP of Bolivia squared by the number of oily six-packs on the average Boris cover and voila...

You come up with an average of 91.75 (before sales tax). 

Going forward that is the committee’s established value for all of “The Average” pages. It will be the hard bidding cap allowed when his pieces go to auction on a go forward basis.

Problem solved!

 

[vodou]

11 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

You come up with an average of 91.75 (before sales tax). 

Sal's for $92...even I'm "in" then!

[zhamlau]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

1 hour ago, zhamlau said:

You come up with an average of 91.75 (before sales tax). 

Sal's for $92...even I'm "in" then!

War is Peace!

Freedom is Slavery!

Buscema is Perlin!

[vodou]

Just now, zhamlau said:

Buscema is Perlin!

I'm paying $91 for Perin.

[alexgross.com]

i dont really buy the premise of this article. perhaps they're right. but look at an artist such as KAWS. his work is loved by gen x-ers and millenials and bought all over the world by citizens of all countries. love him or hate him, he's become a pop art phenom. he's at the top of the class, but there are lots of other pop art phenoms that make art referencing popular cultural icons like mickey mouse. so, if young folks with inheritances dont care about warhol prints featuring liz taylor, they will still have plenty of other art to collect that suits their taste level. art collecting isn't going to go away, it just might be that what younger people collect changes. and they may diversify, but rich people will still desire the bragging rights that hanging an original (insert artist here) painting/print/video/whatever brings them. 

on a side note, the market from china for american and european pop art is off the charts. the amount of 20 and 30 something chinese with money who DO want warhol prints featuring liz taylor or other people they never heard of is off the charts. 

[vodou]

1 hour ago, www.alexgross.com said:

i dont really buy the premise of this article. perhaps they're right. but look at an artist such as KAWS. his work is loved by gen x-ers and millenials and bought all over the world by citizens of all countries. love him or hate him, he's become a pop art phenom. he's at the top of the class, but there are lots of other pop art phenoms that make art referencing popular cultural icons like mickey mouse. so, if young folks with inheritances dont care about warhol prints featuring liz taylor, they will still have plenty of other art to collect that suits their taste level. art collecting isn't going to go away, it just might be that what younger people collect changes. and they may diversify, but rich people will still desire the bragging rights that hanging an original (insert artist here) painting/print/video/whatever brings them. 

on a side note, the market from china for american and european pop art is off the charts. the amount of 20 and 30 something chinese with money who DO want warhol prints featuring liz taylor or other people they never heard of is off the charts. 

Everything you write is correct, but does nothing to disagree with the article either. I think the point of the article is that people will collect art but it won't be your grandfather's art. The example of specific furniture (very high) versus Picasso (quite low) illustrates the changing of the guard that could (is) occurring. Example: Kaws (or Alex Gross) not something anybody would have wanted pre-Juxtapoz. That would be the entire Boomer generation except a literal handful of Billy Shire, George DiCaprio, Glenn Bray type visionaries. And even those guys had to be lead a bit past the obvious exaggerated Ed Roth cars and UG/hippie material by Robt. Williams. Right?

[alexgross.com]

4 hours ago, vodou said:

Everything you write is correct, but does nothing to disagree with the article either. I think the point of the article is that people will collect art but it won't be your grandfather's art. The example of specific furniture (very high) versus Picasso (quite low) illustrates the changing of the guard that could (is) occurring. Example: Kaws (or Alex Gross) not something anybody would have wanted pre-Juxtapoz. That would be the entire Boomer generation except a literal handful of Billy Shire, George DiCaprio, Glenn Bray type visionaries. And even those guys had to be lead a bit past the obvious exaggerated Ed Roth cars and UG/hippie material by Robt. Williams. Right?

one of the main points of the article is that young folks dont care as much about collecting art as their parents and grandparents. the article says:

"But will today’s wealthy 30-somethings and 40-somethings develop a passion for buying art that will maintain its price? Digitally minded millennials’ widely observed preference for experiences rather than possessions might suggest otherwise."

i'm disagreeing with that premise, suggesting that it's just different art that younger people will be interested in. and that it may even be much of the same art too, like warhol. 

[Dick O.]

7 hours ago, www.alexgross.com said:

one of the main points of the article is that young folks dont care as much about collecting art as their parents and grandparents. the article says:

"But will today’s wealthy 30-somethings and 40-somethings develop a passion for buying art that will maintain its price? Digitally minded millennials’ widely observed preference for experiences rather than possessions might suggest otherwise."

i'm disagreeing with that premise, suggesting that it's just different art that younger people will be interested in. and that it may even be much of the same art too, like warhol. 

Yup, the Art Basel/UBS report supports your claim:

 

[Dick O.]

14 hours ago, www.alexgross.com said:

so, if young folks with inheritances dont care about warhol prints featuring liz taylor, they will still have plenty of other art to collect that suits their taste level. art collecting isn't going to go away, it just might be that what younger people collect changes. and they may diversify, but rich people will still desire the bragging rights that hanging an original (insert artist here) painting/print/video/whatever brings them.

As to Millennials' tastes driving the art market going forward, here's what I wrote 3 years ago:

I believe the value of Lee UXM/XM OA (and OA from other popular early-‘90s runs) will appreciate in the coming decades. Present day 30-something year old collectors who were in their formative childhood/adolescent years when they read these comic books in the early-‘90s, are now hitting their prime income-earning years. As nostalgia for childhood pursuits kicks in and their spending power grows, this group of collectors will spend increasing amounts on OA (and other collectibles) from the 1990’s. This demographic also represents the last time that there was a critical mass of young comic book readers. From the late-‘90s onwards, youths tended to favour electronic forms of entertainment, and comic books increasingly targeted adolescents and adults.

[https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/01/13/artist-spotlight-jim-lee/]

And the meteoric price jumps that late-'80s/early-'90s OA has since undergone bears this out 

 

[Peter L]

I don't know how many comic art collectors there actually are.  I just know that there are enough comic art collectors to make buying what I want really expensive.  

[zhamlau]

41 minutes ago, Peter L said:

I don't know how many comic art collectors there actually are.  I just know that there are enough comic art collectors to make buying what I want really expensive.  

God wouldn’t it be great to actually get this 36 year long predicted collapse?! Imagine all the great pieces that could had for prices most non-millionaires could afford ?!